When Reorganization Becomes the Problem: Breaking the Cycle of Structural Instability

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
9 hours ago
15 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Organizational restructuring has become a reflexive managerial response to performance challenges, yet evidence suggests that frequent reorganizations rarely deliver intended outcomes and often inflict substantial hidden costs. Research indicates that fewer than one in four reorganizations succeed in improving performance, while more than half result in productivity declines during implementation. Beyond financial and operational metrics, chronic restructuring erodes the relational fabric essential for sustainable performance—disrupting manager-employee relationships, undermining psychological safety, and preventing the trust-building necessary for genuine organizational agility. This article examines the prevalence and drivers of excessive reorganization, documents its organizational and individual consequences, and presents evidence-based alternatives grounded in human-centric leadership principles. Drawing on research in organizational behavior, change management, and workplace psychology, the analysis offers practitioners a diagnostic framework and actionable interventions that prioritize relational stability, capability development, and authentic organizational learning over structural reshuffling.

Walk into nearly any mid-sized or large organization today and you'll likely encounter employees who can recite their recent organizational history not by strategic milestones or product launches, but by reorganizations. "That was before the third reorg," they'll say, or "I've had twelve managers in seven years." What was once an occasional strategic intervention has become, for many organizations, a recurring pattern that feels less like adaptation and more like organizational whiplash.

The appeal of reorganization is understandable. Faced with competitive pressure, technological disruption, or performance shortfalls, leaders search for levers they can pull quickly. Restructuring offers the promise of decisive action—visible, concrete, within management's direct control. It creates the appearance of responsiveness and strategic clarity. Yet this same appeal obscures a troubling reality: most reorganizations fail to deliver lasting improvement, and many leave organizations worse off than before.

The stakes extend far beyond inefficiency. In knowledge economies where competitive advantage depends on human capital, innovation, and collaborative problem-solving, the relational costs of constant restructuring prove particularly devastating. Trust doesn't develop in three-month increments. Managers can't coach effectively when reporting relationships reset before they've learned their people's strengths and development needs. Teams can't achieve high performance when they're perpetually reforming. When reorganization becomes the default response to organizational challenges, companies inadvertently trade the very capabilities—relational depth, institutional knowledge, psychological safety—that enable genuine agility and sustained performance.

This article examines the evidence on organizational restructuring, explores why it fails so frequently, and offers human-centric alternatives that address root causes rather than rearranging symptoms.

The Organizational Restructuring Landscape

Defining Chronic Reorganization in Contemporary Organizations

Organizational restructuring encompasses formal changes to reporting relationships, departmental boundaries, hierarchical levels, role definitions, and decision-making authority. While occasional restructuring represents a normal element of organizational evolution—responding to market shifts, growth phases, or genuine strategic pivots—chronic reorganization describes a pattern where structural change occurs with such frequency that organizations operate in perpetual transition.

Research by Aiken and Keller (2009) distinguishes between strategic restructuring (deliberate, evidence-based structural changes aligned with clear strategic objectives) and reactive restructuring (frequent, superficial reorganizations that substitute structural shuffling for substantive problem-solving). The latter pattern has become increasingly common, with some organizations restructuring every twelve to twenty-four months—a cadence that prevents any structure from demonstrating its effectiveness or limitations.

The phenomenon manifests in recognizable patterns: leadership rotations that move executives laterally without addressing capability gaps; departmental mergers and subsequent re-separations that reverse previous decisions; matrix structures layered onto hierarchies without resolving underlying coordination challenges; and span-of-control adjustments that change supervision ratios without examining what supervision actually accomplishes.

Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution

Empirical evidence on restructuring frequency reveals troubling patterns. McKinsey research indicates that only 23% of organizational restructurings fully achieve their stated objectives (Aiken & Keller, 2009). More concerning, over half of restructuring initiatives result in productivity declines during implementation, with recovery periods extending well beyond initial projections. A significant proportion of reorganizations are later reversed or substantially modified—tacit acknowledgment that structural changes didn't address the underlying issues.

Several converging forces drive this pattern. First, contemporary management culture valorizes action and change, creating implicit pressure for leaders to "do something" visible when facing challenges. Restructuring satisfies this imperative while avoiding harder conversations about strategy, capability, or culture. Second, leadership tenure has shortened across industries, incentivizing new executives to establish credibility through structural changes rather than investing in longer-term capability development. Third, the genuine acceleration of market change has created organizational anxiety that mistakes constant restructuring for necessary adaptation.

The consulting industry bears examining here as well. External advisors often arrive with restructuring expertise and diagnostic frameworks oriented toward structural solutions, creating a form of solution bias. Organizations engage consultants during periods of challenge, consultants deploy familiar restructuring methodologies, and the cycle reinforces itself—regardless of whether structural issues represent the actual constraint on performance.

Industry distribution shows some variation, with technology, professional services, and financial services particularly prone to frequent reorganization. However, the pattern has spread across sectors. Manufacturing organizations that once maintained stable structures for decades now restructure with increasing frequency. Healthcare systems reorganize clinical and administrative structures repeatedly while struggling with the same underlying coordination challenges. Public sector organizations face additional pressures from political transitions and shifting policy priorities that trigger structural changes regardless of organizational readiness.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Chronic Restructuring

Organizational Performance Impacts

The performance toll of excessive reorganization manifests across multiple dimensions. Productivity research demonstrates consistent implementation dips during reorganization, with knowledge work particularly vulnerable. Studies of organizational change show that restructuring disrupts established coordination routines, forcing teams to rebuild working relationships and renegotiate informal work processes—social infrastructure that often takes months to reconstitute (Amiot et al., 2006). During this rebuilding period, productivity can decline by 20-30% in affected units.

Knowledge loss represents another substantial cost. When organizational boundaries shift, tacit knowledge embedded in relationships and informal networks dissipates. Cross-functional teams that had developed efficient problem-solving routines must start over. Experienced employees who understood how to navigate organizational complexity to get things done find their expertise obsolete. The organization collectively becomes less capable, even as the new structure promises greater efficiency.

Innovation suffers particularly acutely. Psychological safety—the foundation of creative risk-taking—requires stable team relationships where individuals trust they can experiment, propose unconventional ideas, and even fail without career consequences (Edmondson, 2018). Constant restructuring undermines this foundation. Employees facing their third manager in two years learn to keep their heads down, avoid career-risky innovations, and focus on visible compliance rather than creative problem-solving.

Strategic execution falters when organizations never maintain a structure long enough to test whether strategic initiatives work. A company that reorganizes every eighteen months never knows whether poor results stem from strategy, execution, or insufficient time for the strategy to mature. This ambiguity typically triggers another reorganization rather than strategic learning.

Financial costs, while often underestimated, accumulate rapidly. Direct expenses include severance, relocation, new hiring, and consulting fees. Indirect costs—productivity loss, knowledge depletion, delayed initiatives, customer disruption—typically exceed direct expenses by substantial multiples. Organizations that restructure frequently essentially operate with a permanent organizational tax on performance.

Individual Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts

For employees, chronic reorganization creates sustained uncertainty that research links to increased stress, reduced job satisfaction, and deteriorated mental health. Paulsen et al. (2005) found that repeated organizational changes correlate with elevated cortisol levels, sleep disruption, and increased healthcare utilization—physiological markers of chronic stress. When employees can't predict who they'll report to in six months or whether their role will exist in a year, they operate in perpetual survival mode.

The disruption to manager-employee relationships proves particularly costly. Effective coaching and development require managers to understand their people's capabilities, aspirations, career trajectories, and development needs—knowledge that takes time and relational consistency to build. An employee who reports to their twelfth manager in seven years has never experienced sustained development support. They've experienced serial superficial relationships where managers, knowing the structure will likely change again soon, avoid investing deeply in their people's growth.

Career development stagnates under constant restructuring. Traditional development pathways—learning a function deeply, building expertise, advancing through increased responsibility—break down when functions continually reshape and expertise becomes obsolete with each reorganization. Ambitious employees face a choice: wait for stability that may never arrive, or leave for organizations offering clearer development trajectories.

Trust erosion extends beyond individual relationships to organizational legitimacy. When employees watch leaders announce each reorganization as the solution to persistent problems, then see the same problems continue under new structures, they develop organizational cynicism. This learned skepticism doesn't disappear when a genuinely necessary change arrives—making legitimate transformation harder because employees have learned to view all change announcements with suspicion.

For customers, suppliers, and external partners, constant reorganization creates friction and relationship disruption. A procurement partner who has cultivated relationships with supplier representatives finds those relationships reset with each reorganization. A customer navigating a complex purchasing decision must re-educate new account representatives who replaced the previous team. These frictions accumulate into competitive disadvantage as stakeholders gravitate toward more stable partners.

High-performing employees vote with their feet. Research consistently shows that valued employees leave during and after reorganizations at rates substantially higher than normal attrition (Amiot et al., 2006). These departures aren't random—organizations tend to lose precisely the adaptable, highly-skilled people they most need to navigate change successfully, while retaining those with fewer external options.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Diagnostic Rigor Before Structural Intervention

The most critical intervention comes before any restructuring: diagnostic discipline that identifies root causes rather than defaulting to structural solutions. Research on organizational diagnosis emphasizes that most performance challenges stem from issues other than structure—unclear strategy, capability gaps, misaligned incentives, cultural dysfunction, or inadequate resources (Burke & Litwin, 1992).

Effective diagnostic approaches include:

Structured problem analysis that separates symptoms (what you observe) from causes (why it's happening) and tests hypotheses before committing to solutions
Multi-stakeholder input that captures frontline perspectives, not just senior leadership assumptions about organizational dysfunction
Capability assessment examining whether people possess the skills, tools, and support needed to execute current strategy within existing structure
Cultural analysis surfacing norms, beliefs, and behavioral patterns that may undermine formal structures regardless of how they're configured
Strategic clarity testing determining whether strategy confusion (not structural misalignment) explains coordination failures and conflicting priorities
Decision-tracing that maps how specific decisions actually get made versus how the org chart suggests they should get made, revealing informal systems that may work better than leaders recognize

Microsoft's transformation under Satya Nadella provides instructive contrast to restructuring-first approaches. Rather than immediately reorganizing when taking over a company struggling with bureaucracy and declining innovation, Nadella invested initial effort in cultural diagnosis and strategic clarification. The company's shift from "know-it-all" to "learn-it-all" culture preceded and guided structural changes, ensuring that new structures supported rather than substituted for deeper transformation (Nadella, 2017). When structural changes did occur, they emerged from clear strategic logic rather than generic restructuring templates.

Stability Commitments and Relationship Investment

Organizations that break the reorganization cycle make explicit commitments to structural stability for defined periods, allowing teams to develop the relational depth that enables high performance. This doesn't mean freezing structures indefinitely, but rather making stability the default and structural change the exception that requires compelling justification.

Stability-building practices include:

Minimum tenure commitments where organizations commit that barring extraordinary circumstances, reporting relationships and team configurations will remain stable for minimum periods (typically 18-36 months)
Protected team integrity preserving intact teams when reorganization does occur, moving teams as units rather than dispersing individuals
Manager-employee relationship continuity prioritizing preservation of established manager-employee relationships during structural adjustments, even when it requires creative solutions
Reorganization hurdle rates establishing decision criteria that structural changes must meet before proceeding—demonstrating both clear strategic need and evidence that structural change (versus other interventions) addresses root causes
Change budgeting explicitly limiting organizational change capacity in recognition that human systems have finite absorption capacity for simultaneous changes

The Cleveland Clinic, facing pressure to reorganize its physician employment and clinical service line structures, instead committed to multi-year stability periods following major structural changes. During these periods, leadership focused on making current structures work through capability building, process improvement, and cultural adaptation. This discipline allowed the organization to distinguish genuine structural limitations from implementation challenges, preventing premature structural reversals and allowing meaningful performance data to accumulate (Cosgrove, 2014).

Transparent Change Communication and Psychological Contracting

When structural changes prove genuinely necessary, communication quality dramatically influences outcomes. Research on change communication demonstrates that effectiveness depends not on volume or polish, but on addressing the specific uncertainties that trigger employee anxiety and disengagement during transitions (Nelissen & van Selm, 2008).

Evidence-based communication approaches include:

Explicit problem articulation that explains specifically what isn't working in current structure and what evidence supports this diagnosis, moving beyond generic claims about "alignment" or "agility"
Strategic logic transparency connecting structural changes to specific strategic objectives and explaining how new structure enables strategy better than alternatives
Honest acknowledgment of costs and disruption rather than presenting reorganization as painless, demonstrating that leadership understands the personal and organizational toll
Personal impact clarity providing employees specific information about how changes affect them individually—reporting relationships, role expectations, location, compensation—as early as possible
Bidirectional dialogue creating genuine forums where employees can ask hard questions and surface implementation concerns without career risk
Stability horizon communication indicating when future structural stability can reasonably be expected, helping employees plan their own development and career decisions
Psychological contracting conversations where managers and employees explicitly discuss expectations, commitments, and mutual obligations under new structures

Pixar Animation Studios maintains a practice of transparent post-mortem sessions after major projects that sometimes reveal organizational issues. When these sessions surface genuine structural problems, leadership conducts structured dialogues with affected employees before deciding on changes. This includes explicit discussion of what the organization is asking of people, what support they'll receive during transition, and what stability commitments leadership can make post-change. This transparency builds trust that partially offsets the disruption of change itself (Catmull & Wallace, 2014).

Capability Development Over Structural Rearrangement

Many problems attributed to structure actually reflect capability gaps—people lacking skills, knowledge, tools, or support needed to perform effectively in their current roles. Capability-focused interventions address these gaps directly rather than hoping new structures will resolve them.

Capability-building interventions include:

Role clarity and expectation alignment ensuring people understand what's actually expected in their roles, which often solves "accountability" problems without structural change
Skill development programs targeting specific capability gaps identified through performance analysis rather than generic leadership development
Collaborative capacity building developing teams' skills in coordination, conflict resolution, and cross-functional problem-solving—addressing the actual behaviors that make structures work
Decision-making capability teaching both technical decision-making methods and the social skills required for inclusive, efficient organizational decision processes
Managerial capability development with particular emphasis on coaching, feedback, delegation, and development conversations—the relational skills that make stable manager-employee relationships productive
Knowledge infrastructure creating systems that capture and share organizational knowledge, reducing dependence on specific individuals and structural configurations

The U.S. Army, despite operating in highly dynamic environments, maintains relatively stable unit structures while investing heavily in capability development through realistic training, after-action reviews, and systematic knowledge capture. Rather than reorganizing companies or battalions in response to performance issues, the Army typically focuses on training, leadership development, and doctrine refinement. This stability allows units to develop the cohesion that proves critical in high-stakes operations, while capability development provides the adaptability that restructuring promises but rarely delivers (Dixon, 2000).

Process and System Improvement

Coordination problems often blamed on organizational structure actually reflect inadequate processes, systems, or operating mechanisms. Investment in these operational elements frequently resolves issues at lower cost and disruption than restructuring.

Process-focused interventions include:

Cross-functional process redesign mapping and improving processes that span organizational boundaries, reducing coordination friction without changing reporting relationships
Decision rights clarification explicitly defining who makes which decisions, how input is gathered, and how disagreements resolve—often solving "accountability" problems attributed to structure
Meeting architecture redesign restructuring how teams meet, interact, and coordinate rather than restructuring the teams themselves
Information system improvement ensuring people have access to information they need for coordination, reducing structural dependencies
Governance mechanism development creating cross-functional forums, working groups, or governance bodies that enable coordination across stable structures
Workflow automation and standardization removing coordination friction through technology and standardization where appropriate

Toyota's production system demonstrates how robust processes and operating systems enable organizational effectiveness despite deliberately stable organizational structures. Rather than reorganizing when coordination challenges emerge, Toyota invests in process improvement, problem-solving capability development, and system refinement. This approach has allowed the company to maintain remarkable organizational stability while adapting to dramatically changing markets and technologies over decades (Liker, 2004).

Building Long-Term Organizational Resilience

Distributed Leadership and Decision-Making Capability

Organizations that escape the reorganization cycle develop leadership capability throughout the organization rather than concentrating decision-making at senior levels. This distribution creates resilience—the organization can adapt to changing conditions through distributed decision-making without requiring structural reconfiguration.

Distributed leadership doesn't mean eliminating hierarchy or formal authority, but rather developing genuine decision-making capability at multiple levels and creating explicit frameworks for which decisions require escalation versus frontline resolution. Organizations with mature distributed leadership can respond to market shifts, customer needs, and operational challenges through local adaptation rather than centralized restructuring.

This requires investment in several capabilities: teaching decision-making frameworks and methods throughout the organization; developing managers' skills in delegation and empowerment rather than control; creating information transparency that enables informed decision-making at multiple levels; and building accountability systems that support distributed authority rather than undermining it.

Research on high-reliability organizations—including healthcare systems, aviation, and nuclear power—demonstrates that distributed decision-making capability enables rapid adaptation within stable structures (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). These organizations face high complexity and rapid environmental change yet maintain structural stability by pushing decision authority and capability to frontline operators who can respond immediately to emerging conditions. The stability allows these operators to develop deep expertise and strong working relationships, while distributed authority provides the adaptability that restructuring advocates seek.

Organizational Learning Systems and Knowledge Infrastructure

Organizations that learn systematically from experience develop alternatives to the restructure-as-learning-mechanism trap. Instead of reorganizing to address problems, they build capabilities to identify problems accurately, test solutions rigorously, and embed learning in operating systems.

This requires creating structured reflection practices—after-action reviews, project retrospectives, performance debriefs—that surface genuine insights rather than ritual exercises. It means developing knowledge management infrastructure that captures and shares learning across the organization, reducing dependence on specific individuals or structures. It involves cultivating psychological safety that allows honest problem identification without blame or career risk (Edmondson, 2018).

Organizations with mature learning systems can distinguish problems that require structural intervention from those addressable through process improvement, capability development, or strategic adjustment. They maintain institutional memory that prevents repeatedly cycling through the same structural configurations that failed previously. They develop realistic understanding of implementation timelines and change capacity that prevents overly aggressive restructuring schedules.

The U.S. Army's Center for Army Lessons Learned exemplifies systematic organizational learning that enables adaptation without constant restructuring. The center systematically collects, analyzes, and disseminates lessons from training exercises and operations, creating institutional knowledge that informs doctrine, training, and capability development. This systematic learning allows the Army to adapt continuously to changing threats and technologies while maintaining stable unit structures that preserve the team cohesion essential for military effectiveness (Dixon, 2000).

Adaptive Culture and Psychological Contracting

Perhaps most fundamentally, organizations that break the reorganization cycle cultivate cultures where adaptation occurs through behavior change, skill development, and process evolution rather than structural reshuffling. This requires explicit psychological contracting around what stability means and what adaptation requires.

In these organizations, the implicit employment deal shifts from "your role will remain constant" (which proves untenable in dynamic markets) to "your structural home will remain stable, but your work, skills, and contributions will evolve continuously." This contracting acknowledges market reality while providing the stability that enables sustained development and high performance.

Building this culture requires leadership modeling—senior leaders who demonstrate learning, skill development, and behavioral adaptation rather than solving problems through structural authority. It requires explicit discussion of what organizational agility actually means: rapid learning and adaptation within stable structures rather than constant structural reconfiguration. It means celebrating examples of teams that solved problems through collaboration, process improvement, or capability development rather than structural escalation.

Research on organizational culture change demonstrates that sustainable adaptation requires alignment between espoused values and actual leadership behavior (Schein, 2010). When leaders claim to value stability and capability development but repeatedly restructure at the first sign of difficulty, employees learn the real priority. Conversely, when leaders consistently invest in making current structures work before considering alternatives, they create cultural norms that favor substantive problem-solving over structural rearrangement.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: chronic reorganization creates more problems than it solves. Most restructuring initiatives fail to achieve intended objectives, many actively harm performance, and the relational damage—disrupted manager-employee relationships, eroded trust, stagnated development—undermines the human capital that knowledge organizations depend upon for competitive advantage.

Yet the pattern persists because reorganization offers leaders an appealing illusion: that complex organizational problems can be solved through structural rearrangement, that decisive action substitutes for sustained capability building, and that agility means constant change rather than disciplined adaptation. Breaking this pattern requires confronting harder truths—that most organizational problems stem from capability gaps, cultural dysfunction, or strategic confusion rather than structural misalignment; that genuine agility depends on relational stability that allows rapid coordination and decision-making; and that sustainable performance requires patient investment in people, processes, and learning systems.

The alternative to chronic reorganization isn't structural rigidity. It's diagnostic discipline that identifies root causes before defaulting to structural solutions. It's commitment to stability that allows trust and capability to develop. It's investment in the processes, systems, and capabilities that make structures work rather than hoping new structures will compensate for capability gaps. It's transparent communication that builds trust even during necessary changes. And it's cultivation of learning systems and adaptive culture that enable evolution without constant structural disruption.

For leaders facing organizational challenges, the question isn't whether to reorganize, but whether structural change addresses the actual constraint on performance. Most often, it doesn't. The harder work—diagnosing real problems, building capability, improving processes, developing culture—proves more effective precisely because it addresses root causes rather than rearranging symptoms. Organizations that commit to this harder work develop genuine agility: the ability to adapt quickly not because they restructure constantly, but because they've built the relationships, capabilities, and systems that enable coordinated action regardless of structural configuration.

The curse of the constant reorg isn't that organizations change their structures. It's that they substitute structural shuffling for the harder work of genuine organizational development. Breaking this curse requires leadership courage to resist the pressure for visible action and instead commit to the sustained, relationship-intensive work that builds organizations capable of enduring high performance. The reward for this commitment isn't dramatic transformation. It's something more valuable: an organization where people can do their best work because they're not perpetually in survival mode, where trust and capability deepen over time, and where adaptation happens through learning rather than structural disruption.

References

Aiken, C., & Keller, S. (2009). The irrational side of change management. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 100-109.
Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4), 552-574.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. Random House.
Cosgrove, T. (2014). The Cleveland Clinic way: Lessons in excellence from one of the world's leading healthcare organizations. McGraw-Hill Education.
Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard Business School Press.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
Nadella, S. (2017). Hit refresh: The quest to rediscover Microsoft's soul and imagine a better future for everyone. Harper Business.
Nelissen, P., & van Selm, M. (2008). Surviving organizational change: How management communication helps balance mixed feelings. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 306-318.
Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Grice, T. A., Rooney, D., Gallois, C., Jones, E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Bordia, P. (2005). Job uncertainty and personal control during downsizing: A comparison of survivors and victims. Human Relations, 58(4), 463-496.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). When Reorganization Becomes the Problem: Breaking the Cycle of Structural Instability. Human Capital Leadership Review, 26(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.26.4.3